Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> It's not free the way the GPL redefines the word to mean restricted,
>> but it doesn't interfere with your freedom to distribute your
>> changes as patches, leaving it clear that it is something different
>> from the original author's work that he supports.
> 
> I think my meaning was clear.  It's not free because you can't
> distribute modified versions. 

It means you've defined free to mean what GPL advocates pretend it means.

> And no matter how much you try to
> define it away, this basic fact will not change.  Yes, you can supply
> it with a bunch of patches, but you can't do the obvious thing and
> check it in to a public source code control system and work on it
> there, since that would mean sharing a modified version.

You can't generalize and say that can't be done, because the copyright 
owner may grant such permission - or do the generally better thing and 
coordinate the modifications himself.  But note that you _can_ 
generalize and say that this is always impossible with any GPL covered 
material when the modification you want to make involves adding 
something that isn't GPL'd.

> You can't
> distribute a modified version as part of, for example, a Linux distro.

And you can't modify a Linux disto, for example, by adding zfs to the 
kernel and distribute it.

> It's not free in any sense, except free-as-in-beer.

And GPL-encumbered material isn't free in any sense except for the rare 
dual-licensed things that cleverly avoid its entrapment.  You are just 
ignoring the restrictions.

>> but it is only in odd circumstances that it even matters or that
>> there is any effective difference.  Even in GPL circles I think most
>> people agree that the best process is to coordinate modifications
>> into a single revision tree instead of forking wildly.
> 
> Sure, but that's a matter of free choice.  That's what freedom means:
> you can either fork the software yourself, or you can contribute to
> the trunk.  The choice is up to *you*.  And anyone to whom you give
> the software has that same choice, and you can't take that freedom
> away from them.

Sorry, but freedom does _not_ mean being restricted from using 
components together and forcing everyone else to follow that same 
restriction.

>>>> There is the argument that if the author/maintainer stops
>>>> updating, the package can die.
>>> Quite.  And, indeed, that's the inevitable consequence.
>> It's not at all inevitable since the copyright holder can transfer
>> control at any time or might already be a foundation that will outlast
>> any possible use for the product.
> 
> Sure, or they might not choose to do so.

So don't claim it is inevitable one way or another.  Those choices are 
what freedom is about.

>> But, in technology everyone is better
>> off when an old package does die and is replaced by something new and
>> improved, and the harm of the GPL is that it's 'work as a whole'
>> requirement makes it difficult or impossible for these replacements to
>> happen at the component level when the currently best component isn't
>> encumbered by the GPL.
> 
> Eh?  This makes no sense.  It's certainly not justified by this
> example, anyway.

If it takes a current concrete example to make sense, swapping out 
reiserfs with zfs in the Linux kernel seems like a good idea.  But we 
can't do that because the kernel is too free.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com